Swa maintenance issues?

[mdf]

Southwest Airlines has added a news release to its Investor Relations website.

Title: Former NTSB Investigator in Charge Offers Safety of Flight Assessment on Behalf of Southwest Airlines
Date: 3/7/2008 4:55:00 PM

For a complete listing of our news releases, please click here

DALLAS, March 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The following is a statement by
Gregory A. Feith:


I was requested by Southwest Airlines (SWA) to review and assess the
potential safety of flight risk that could have resulted from the continued
in-service operation of 46 of their Classic 737 airplanes in March 2007 as
they progressively inspected a small area (under 0.6%) of the fuselage skin as
required by FAA Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-06. The assessment involved
the review of technical documents associated with both mandatory and
non-mandatory inspections, pertinent service/maintenance history for the
46 airplanes, a technical briefing by the Southwest Airlines Engineering
Department and technical data/analysis provided by Boeing (the airplane
manufacturer) related to structural integrity of fuselage skin cracks that
were found on five of the 46 SWA airplanes. The scope of the assessment was
confined to the safety of flight issues only.


Based on the information I have reviewed, it is apparent that on March 15,
2007, SWA initiated re-inspection of the affected airplanes to accomplish the
inadvertently missed portion of FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-18-06.
A review of the historical information that led to the issuance of the AD
indicates that a progressive inspection for fuselage skin cracking was
initially distributed to operators in the form of a "non-mandatory" Service
Bulletin (SB) that provided "risk mitigation" actions that operators were
encouraged to incorporate into their maintenance program. This Service
Bulletin was based, in large part, on an inspection program developed by
Southwest Airlines. The issuance of the AD was a continued effort to ensure
that cracks in the fuselage skin on the Boeing 737 airplanes were identified
and mitigated well before they could pose a safety of flight issue. It is
evident from the 4500 hour initial inspection requirement (regardless of
aircraft age (i.e. flight cycles)) that the FAA did not regard the skin
cracking as an "immediate threat" to the safety of flight of the airplane.
Thus, the FAA Airworthiness Directive permitted aircraft to remain in-service
for approximately 1 1/2 years, until a normally scheduled heavy maintenance
visit occurred, before the first inspection was required.


In addition, it is evident from the analysis and testing data developed by
Boeing that cracks up to 6 inches in the fuselage skin do not compromise the
structural integrity or pose a safety of flight issue. This is further
supported by the design of the fuselage structure which incorporates "internal
reinforcing doublers in the skin assembly" and "tearstraps," both of which are
intended to provide strength, and slow or abate the growth rate of a crack
under normal operating aerodynamic loads.


Based on the available data and information reviewed, it is apparent that
there was no risk to the flying public in March 2007 while Southwest Airlines
performed their program to re-inspect the small area of aircraft fuselages
identified in the AD inspection that was inadvertently missed.


Gregory A. Feith
International Aviation Safety & Security Consultant

 

[erj-145mech]

First, lets remember....SWA didn't try to hide anything. They self-disclosed to the FAA.

Negative, the FAA inspectors found it and brought it to the attention of SWA, and they said, "Oh Yeah". Self disclosed is not making over 60,000 flights over inspection, and racking up $10MM in fines.

If SWA had Boeings concurance on the safety, they would have it in writing through an AMOC (alternate method of compliance), which would have made it legal.

 

[PCL_128]

This is reminiscent of the JetBlue transcon turn debacle. JetBlue got their POI to approve it, even though they were fully aware (or should have been, anyway) that a POI doesn't have the power to waive this stuff. Now here comes SWA saying that their local PMI approved something that he doesn't have the power to approve. Is this the new thing for management? Just pretend that you don't understand the rules and shift all of the blame to the Certificate Management Office for their carrier?

 

[JoeMerchant]

This is reminiscent of the JetBlue transcon turn debacle. JetBlue got their POI to approve it, even though they were fully aware (or should have been, anyway) that a POI doesn't have the power to waive this stuff. Now here comes SWA saying that their local PMI approved something that he doesn't have the power to approve. Is this the new thing for management? Just pretend that you don't understand the rules and shift all of the blame to the Certificate Management Office for their carrier?

Actually the Jetblue transcon turn "debacle" made a lot of sense.....Duty time and circadian rythem contribute more to fatique than actual flight time. A 9 hour flight time day with 12 hours of duty and back to your own time zone makes more sense than going to the hotel on the west coast only to duty in later for a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

 

[PCL_128]

Actually the Jetblue transcon turn "debacle" made a lot of sense.....Duty time and circadian rythem contribute more to fatique than actual flight time. A 9 hour flight time day with 12 hours of duty and back to your own time zone makes more sense than going to the hotel on the west coast only to duty in later for a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

I disagree with your assertion, but that isn't really the point of the post. The point was that JetBlue was operating flights in violation of the regulations simply because their POI said it was ok. That's not how it works. You can't do something in violation of the law or regulations simply because your POI or PMI says you can. They don't have that sort of power.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I disagree with your assertion, but that isn't really the point of the post. The point was that JetBlue was operating flights in violation of the regulations simply because their POI said it was ok. That's not how it works. You can't do something in violation of the law or regulations simply because your POI or PMI says you can. They don't have that sort of power.

....I agree the POI can't do that, but why do you disagree with the 8 hour flight time rule being modified for this situation?

Do you really believe it safer to duty out on the left coast, go to the hotel and then fly a red eye back? I really don't understand the 8 hour flight time issue....

 

[PCL_128]

but why do you disagree with the 8 hour flight time rule being modified for this situation?

Flight and duty time limitations need to be tightened, not loosened. I might be willing to compromise on it if the change also included a FAR-mandated limitation of a 12-hour duty day. Without that, no deal.

 

[G100driver]

oh yeah.

Alaska had the faulty jack screw in the stab trim that caused their fatal crash.

so sorry.

Caused by management not doing required inspections. (which would have led to a repair .... which of course most of us know is the purpose of an inspection)

 

[JoeMerchant]

Flight and duty time limitations need to be tightened, not loosened. I might be willing to compromise on it if the change also included a FAR-mandated limitation of a 12-hour duty day. Without that, no deal.

The problem is that would result in fewer days off.... Safety is safety....If 9 hours of flying isn't safe, then it isn't safe even with a 12 hour duty day.....

The fact is, this was opposed by the ALPA legacy carriers because it would have given Jetblue a competive advantage.....Once again safety was used as an excuse as was age 60......

It isn't the hours of flying that is fatiguing....It is the duty time and the circadian rythem and the number of legs.....

 

[Poahi]

....12 hours of duty and back ... makes more sense than ...a red eye back to the east coast so as to avoid the 8 hour issue....

Two wrongs don't make a right. And it's a slippery slope.

I wouldn't want my kids on a flight landing back at JFK on an icy runway after a long day like that. Long days and flip flop duty periods are what we're trying to fight in the first place.

 

[PCL_128]

The problem is that would result in fewer days off

No it doesn't. We have a max duty day of 12 hours at AAI. We get well above the average days off for the industry.

Safety is safety....If 9 hours of flying isn't safe, then it isn't safe even with a 12 hour duty day.....

Ridiculous. Eight hours of flying during a 15 hour duty day is far more fatiguing than 8 hours of flying in a 10 hour duty day.

The fact is, this was opposed by the ALPA legacy carriers because it would have given Jetblue a competive advantage

Not even close to accurate. It was opposed because of the precedent set by the "People Express rule," otherwise known as the 3585 exemption. Exemption 3585 was originally intended to be used just for People Express. They wanted the exemption because of weather problems in their EWR hub that were causing cancellations. The exemption was never intended to be used industry-wide, but guess what happened? Now we all get the "joys" of dispatching under 3585. You think an 8-hour exemption for JetBlue would be different? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It isn't the hours of flying that is fatiguing....It is the duty time and the circadian rythem and the number of legs.....

It's all of the above in combination.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

From the AIN website:http://www.ainonline.com/news/singl...uthwest-airlines/?no_cache=1&cHash=d672a038e6

The FAA today said it planned to levy a $10.2 million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines for operating 46 airplanes that hadn’t undergone mandatory inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. Subsequently, the airline found that six of the 46 airplanes had developed fatigue cracks.

“The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew,” said FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas Sabatini. “We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action.”

The FAA alleges that from June 18, 2006, to March 14, 2007, Southwest operated 59,791 flights without performing repetitive inspections of certain fuselage areas on its Boeing 737s to detect fatigue cracking as required by a Sept. 8, 2004 Airworthiness Directive. The agency also alleges that after the airline discovered that it had failed to perform inspections, it continued to operate the same 46 aircraft on another 1,451 flights between March 15, 2007 and March 23, 2007. The FAA said in a statement that the amount of the civil penalty reflects the serious nature of those “deliberate” violations.

The AD in question mandated repetitive external detailed and eddy-current inspections at intervals of no more than 4,500 flight cycles to detect fatigue cracking in areas of the fuselage skin on some Boeing 737 models.

Southwest Airlines has 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.

 

[jke406]

So basically, SWA did not self report?

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Negative, the FAA inspectors found it and brought it to the attention of SWA, and they said, "Oh Yeah". Self disclosed is not making over 60,000 flights over inspection, and racking up $10MM in fines.

If SWA had Boeings concurance on the safety, they would have it in writing through an AMOC (alternate method of compliance), which would have made it legal.

Double negative....SWA has stated in their press release to the public that they self-disclosed...to the PMI. In fact, in this very evening, SWA said that if they hadn't self-disclosed, that the FAA possibly would've never found out.

SWA does have all the data from the discussion that took place between the PMI, Boeing and SWA. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean that it's not there.

This turns out to be a spitting match between 2 people in an FAA office.

Not one penny in fines will be paid..bank on that

 

[JoeMerchant]

Two wrongs don't make a right. And it's a slippery slope.

I wouldn't want my kids on a flight landing back at JFK on an icy runway after a long day like that. Long days and flip flop duty periods are what we're trying to fight in the first place.

OK, but to avoid the 8 hour rule here is what you can get....

Morning flight to the West Coast.....go to the hotel during the day.....and fly the red eye back to the East Coast....Are you going to put your kids on the red eye to the East Coast?

How about an 14 hour duty day with 7 legs, but only 8 hours of flying....We do those all the time at the regionals.....Many times with 300 hour folks in the right seat....

Safety is all relative and sometimes it seems like we focus on the wrong things.....